Negligence
Topic/Subtopic
Cases/Law
Facts /Quotation/Principle/Definition
Negligence.
Definition
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex. 781, per Alderson B
‘Negligence is the omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or do something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.’
The tort of negligence
Negligence is about fault based liability. The plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was at fault.
Remedy for plaintiff: Damages as compensation.
This is NOT strict liability
Act/Omission/Advice
Expressions
Tortfeasor
Damages
What the plaintiff has to establish to prove negligence.
The defendant will only be liable if the plaintiff can prove that:
1. D owed them a duty of care
2. D was in breach of the duty of care
3. D’s breach of duty was cause of P’s loss
4. The damage suffered by P was not too remote
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
- Stevenson manufactured soft drinks
- Drinks sold in opaque bottles
- D’s friend bought her a ginger beer at a cafe
- D drank some
- Inside the bottle were the remains of a decomposing snail
- D got very ill (shock & gastro enteritis)
- D sued S (manufacturer) for negligence; could not sue friend or owner of coffee shop because she was not in a contractual relationship with them.
(very good case to prove duty of care) Assignment
English House of Lords decided a person could be liable for negligence even though there was no contract between them.
However, to be liable, it must be shown (principles set by House of Lords):
Step 1: the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff
Step 2: the defendant breached the proper standard of care (ie been negligent)
Step 3: the negligence caused the plaintiff’s loss
Step 4: the damage caused was not too remote
The negligence principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson has now been extended to include many
Cases/Law
Facts /Quotation/Principle/Definition
Negligence.
Definition
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex. 781, per Alderson B
‘Negligence is the omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or do something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.’
The tort of negligence
Negligence is about fault based liability. The plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was at fault.
Remedy for plaintiff: Damages as compensation.
This is NOT strict liability
Act/Omission/Advice
Expressions
Tortfeasor
Damages
What the plaintiff has to establish to prove negligence.
The defendant will only be liable if the plaintiff can prove that:
1. D owed them a duty of care
2. D was in breach of the duty of care
3. D’s breach of duty was cause of P’s loss
4. The damage suffered by P was not too remote
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
- Stevenson manufactured soft drinks
- Drinks sold in opaque bottles
- D’s friend bought her a ginger beer at a cafe
- D drank some
- Inside the bottle were the remains of a decomposing snail
- D got very ill (shock & gastro enteritis)
- D sued S (manufacturer) for negligence; could not sue friend or owner of coffee shop because she was not in a contractual relationship with them.
(very good case to prove duty of care) Assignment
English House of Lords decided a person could be liable for negligence even though there was no contract between them.
However, to be liable, it must be shown (principles set by House of Lords):
Step 1: the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff
Step 2: the defendant breached the proper standard of care (ie been negligent)
Step 3: the negligence caused the plaintiff’s loss
Step 4: the damage caused was not too remote
The negligence principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson has now been extended to include many